Re: [xsl] Proposed syntax for namespace binding in XPath

[Florent Georges <darkman_spam@xxxxxxxx>]

Colin Adams wrote:

  Hi Colin

> I think an extension function is the right approach, in as
> much as it clearly signals non-standard behaviour (and you
> get an error on a processor that does not recognize it,
> which is important - the last thing you want is silent
> errors - i.e. incorrect output).

  I tend to agree with this principle in general, but in the
other hand here, we want to be able to share XPath
expressions between products.  Those that understand this
extension will use it, but the other ones have to be able to
execute the expression anyway (providing that on those
products the bindings are set in another way).

  But I agree that this could silent some errors, and that
is bad.

> >But it feels a bit like an abuse.

> It depends what the semantics of the extension function.
> If they are defined as adding namespaces to the static
> context, then I think this would be a violation of the
> XPATH language, because the static context is no longer
> static (its contents changes during evaluation of the
> language).

  But the adding of the bindings can be done while compiling
the expression, before evaluating it, isn't it?

  Regards,

--drkm



















	

	
		
___________________________________________________________________________ 
Dicouvrez une nouvelle fagon d'obtenir des riponses ` toutes vos questions ! 
Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expiriences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/Riponses 
http://fr.answers.yahoo.com